What's Vasik Rajlich doing today?

[bob]

Not sure what this has got to do with the issue of whether rule #2 is about copyrights. And it seems to me that in either case it is not the number of differences that is relevant, but how much was similar.

Did you read? Nothing is similar.

Every major evaluation ingredient is coded differently, mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, Rybka is missing Fruit's late endgame knowledge, Rybka has a material table – different from Fruit. Rybka does not contain Fruit's quad function, Rybka’s trapped bishop evaluation is different, rook evaluation is different, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does).

You never looked at the evidence.

Even the most simple evaluation of all (the double pawn) is evaluated differently. Fruit has a fixed penalty value for the mid and endgame. Rybka only evaluates for the endgame. Just to give you an example.

Seriously, "nothing is similar"??? Hashing is almost a perfect match, the one difference came because he split it up into separate pieces as a speed optimization. Nothing similar in parse_go, no mysterious 0.0 constants in more than one place? Nothing similar in the evaluation? And then there were the earlier rybkas as well. Nothing copied in those either???

[bob]

It's what I said all along, if you can't proof a derivative work then what the verdict was about is the usuage of "too many" ideas.

And even that is wrong.

Every major evaluation ingredient is coded differently, mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, Rybka is missing Fruit's late endgame knowledge, Rybka has a material table – different from Fruit. Rybka does not contain Fruit's quad function, Rybka’s trapped bishop evaluation is different, rook evaluation is different, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does).

Other key differences between Fruit and Rybka:

1.Time control is different
2.Fen parsing is different
3.Rybka extracts the mainline from the transposition table (TT), Fruit via the classic triangle table
4.Rybka 1.0 beta displays a mainline of maximum of 10 moves, Fruit produces much longer variations
5.Rybka uses a bitboard board representation whereas Fruit is mailbox
6.Rybka’s pawn value is 3200 (which is unique), Fruit uses the classic value of 100
7.The order in the evaluations of Fruit and Rybka are not similar
8.Rybka has lazy evaluation, which is absent in Fruit
9.Futility pruning is different between the two programs
10.Rybka uses Late Move Reductions (LMR) whereas Fruit uses history reductions
11.Fruit uses a history table which is absent Rybka.
12.Fruit only has one evaluation table (king safety) while Rybka has many
13.The two programs have a different move format
14.Rybka does not handle promotions to minor pieces
15.The two programs have different hash table code
16.They have different handling of repetitions and the 50-move rule in search
17.Fruit maintains piece-lists which are not present in Rybka
18.Fruit maintains a pseudo "bitboard" for pawns, Rybka has the real thing.
19.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka needs to update 4 rotations of occupancy bitboard
20.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka updates a rough estimate of material balance with weights of 1:3:3:5:10 (in the evaluation this value is then corrected by a delta obtained from the material table)
21.Fruit has a 16*16 square mailbox, Rybka has an 8*8
22.The programs have different Zobrist hash keys
23.The programs have different user interface options

We found 35 indisputable differences (some of which are very fundamental), not counting the ones that are debatable such as the Piece Square Tables (PSTs) and the contents of the TT.

Doesn't fit the definition of a derivative work.

Differences do not matter, it is the similarities and the number of them that violate rule 2. 75% of what you cite above comes from the mailbox/bitboard differences. Irrelevant in this context.

Nice try, no cigar.

All the evaluation elements were removed from their data structure, either mailbox or bitbaord. Every evaluation ingrediënt is coded differently, thus NO SIMILARITY.

What's left for you was to find traces of clear code copying. And as you admitted you did a lousy job. No surprise, because it wasn't there.

Double strike.

Not even a reasonable try. One can read Zach's report to see that there WERE many similarities. One can look at parts of the C from fruit, and compare it to the asm from rebuke and see the similarities. One can look at Vida's decompilation of Rybka's hashing code, showing both bugs and unnecessary information. The SAME bugs and unnecessary information found in BOTH. The bit board comment is simply a red-herring. Being bit board does NOT mean it is original, just because fruit was mailbox. My early versions of Crafty were conversions from FORTRAN in Cray Blitz (which used mailbox) to C and bit boards in Crafty. Nobody in their right mind would say Crafty was a unique and original engine. Because it isn't. It is the current endpoint for a program started in 1968.

[vittyvirus]

Hi Sedat,

This whole nonsense here. I no longer look through. Is now a debate about families. Is getting worse.

Let us discuss about Football.
My first Club: Wattenscheid 09 (forth German league) won again. 6 Points from two games.
My second Club: Bor. M'gladbach (first German league) won again with 1:0. 9 of 12 Points after the last four games ... 3x 1:0 and 1x 0:1.

A good weekend I have here.

Best
Frank

Hello Frank

I agree with you 100 % this time

And I think Rybka/Fruit issue will be never solved...

That's why it's time to concentrate for other things...

Now is too late...see you later my dear friend

Best,
Sedat

Some of us miss Vasik Rajlich, but I'm glad that Fabien himself is active member of CP community!

[Rebel]

It's what I said all along, if you can't proof a derivative work then what the verdict was about is the usuage of "too many" ideas.

And even that is wrong.

Every major evaluation ingredient is coded differently, mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, Rybka is missing Fruit's late endgame knowledge, Rybka has a material table – different from Fruit. Rybka does not contain Fruit's quad function, Rybka’s trapped bishop evaluation is different, rook evaluation is different, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does).

Other key differences between Fruit and Rybka:

1.Time control is different
2.Fen parsing is different
3.Rybka extracts the mainline from the transposition table (TT), Fruit via the classic triangle table
4.Rybka 1.0 beta displays a mainline of maximum of 10 moves, Fruit produces much longer variations
5.Rybka uses a bitboard board representation whereas Fruit is mailbox
6.Rybka’s pawn value is 3200 (which is unique), Fruit uses the classic value of 100
7.The order in the evaluations of Fruit and Rybka are not similar
8.Rybka has lazy evaluation, which is absent in Fruit
9.Futility pruning is different between the two programs
10.Rybka uses Late Move Reductions (LMR) whereas Fruit uses history reductions
11.Fruit uses a history table which is absent Rybka.
12.Fruit only has one evaluation table (king safety) while Rybka has many
13.The two programs have a different move format
14.Rybka does not handle promotions to minor pieces
15.The two programs have different hash table code
16.They have different handling of repetitions and the 50-move rule in search
17.Fruit maintains piece-lists which are not present in Rybka
18.Fruit maintains a pseudo "bitboard" for pawns, Rybka has the real thing.
19.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka needs to update 4 rotations of occupancy bitboard
20.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka updates a rough estimate of material balance with weights of 1:3:3:5:10 (in the evaluation this value is then corrected by a delta obtained from the material table)
21.Fruit has a 16*16 square mailbox, Rybka has an 8*8
22.The programs have different Zobrist hash keys
23.The programs have different user interface options

We found 35 indisputable differences (some of which are very fundamental), not counting the ones that are debatable such as the Piece Square Tables (PSTs) and the contents of the TT.

Doesn't fit the definition of a derivative work.

Differences do not matter, it is the similarities and the number of them that violate rule 2. 75% of what you cite above comes from the mailbox/bitboard differences. Irrelevant in this context.

Nice try, no cigar.

All the evaluation elements were removed from their data structure, either mailbox or bitbaord. Every evaluation ingrediënt is coded differently, thus NO SIMILARITY.

What's left for you was to find traces of clear code copying. And as you admitted you did a lousy job. No surprise, because it wasn't there.

Double strike.

Not even a reasonable try. One can read Zach's report to see that there WERE many similarities. One can look at parts of the C from fruit, and compare it to the asm from rebuke and see the similarities.

Like Andrew Dalke said, The Zach Wegner document is highly misleading.

Furtmermore -

1. Its style is accusing from the beginning to the end, the reader is told what to think, it doesn't meet any scientific standard.

2. The many errors Zach made, especially his analysis of the Material Imbalance Table (a total new evalution technique now in use by many) is total garbage and yet Zach couldn't resist the temptation to link it anyway to Fruit as a similarity. Shameful.

3. In his fervor and already closed mind that Vas copied Fruit he missed all the evidence that unburdens the alleged similarity accusation at every evaluation element. In mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, even the trapped bishop evaluation, rook evaluation, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does) which Zach totally ignored also. No surprise here, Zach wasn't looking unburden evidences that would plea Vas free, no, convinced in his mind as he was Vas copied Fruit he only looked for signs of similarity, classic tunnel vision thinking. In science you you present the facts objectively. That's not what Zach did.

Some of us programmers have done more than just believing Zach's accusing document and critically scrutinized every accusation Zach made and concluded it is a bogus document.

One can look at Vida's decompilation of Rybka's hashing code, showing both bugs and unnecessary information. The SAME bugs and unnecessary information found in BOTH.

1. There are no bugs another sign that you don't have done your homework again. Both gents (Vas and Fabien) have discussed various search techniques in public (CCC) in the years 2003/4. Look it up! For that purpose I have written a special utility [ http://www.top-5000.nl/ccc.htm ] because I wanted to know what kind of information was shared during the pre-Rybka years.

They discussed and both tried the then much hyped and popular MTD(f) search technique among chess programmers, in the end both decided it did not help their program. Now as you very well know MTD(f) requires a strict data structure with 2 extra scores. Claiming similarity is bogus because the data structure for MTD(f) is OBLIGED.

What you call a bug is also wrong, switching back to a non MTD(f) search has the advantage you can leave the data structure in tact (including the 2 extra scores) and easily can try out other search techniques without rewriting the whole TT again. What you call a bug in fact is FLEXIBILITY. Read the old threads of 2003/04, it's all there.

2. Hash-table code contains 2 main elements:
2a. the update part, position is stored in the HT;
2b. the retrieve part, position is checked if present in the HT.

Regarding 2a - you know very well this part is where the intelligence and creativity of the programmer resides and it is TOTAL different than Fruit. And you know that.

Regarding 2b - Pretty much forced code based on the data structure, you know that as well. Not much choice in coding.

Like Zach, it's your subjective (and already closed) mind that wants to interprete things as evidence against Vas without looking at it from an objective point of view.

Last (and once again), you guys investigated the wrong version, a version that did not play in an ICGA tournament. The first Rybka version that played was 2.32a. In there the HT is completely rewritten from 16 to 8 bytes per entry and any programmer knows what that means: Nothing like Fruit.

[vittyvirus]

It's what I said all along, if you can't proof a derivative work then what the verdict was about is the usuage of "too many" ideas.

And even that is wrong.

Every major evaluation ingredient is coded differently, mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, Rybka is missing Fruit's late endgame knowledge, Rybka has a material table – different from Fruit. Rybka does not contain Fruit's quad function, Rybka’s trapped bishop evaluation is different, rook evaluation is different, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does).

Other key differences between Fruit and Rybka:

1.Time control is different
2.Fen parsing is different
3.Rybka extracts the mainline from the transposition table (TT), Fruit via the classic triangle table
4.Rybka 1.0 beta displays a mainline of maximum of 10 moves, Fruit produces much longer variations
5.Rybka uses a bitboard board representation whereas Fruit is mailbox
6.Rybka’s pawn value is 3200 (which is unique), Fruit uses the classic value of 100
7.The order in the evaluations of Fruit and Rybka are not similar
8.Rybka has lazy evaluation, which is absent in Fruit
9.Futility pruning is different between the two programs
10.Rybka uses Late Move Reductions (LMR) whereas Fruit uses history reductions
11.Fruit uses a history table which is absent Rybka.
12.Fruit only has one evaluation table (king safety) while Rybka has many
13.The two programs have a different move format
14.Rybka does not handle promotions to minor pieces
15.The two programs have different hash table code
16.They have different handling of repetitions and the 50-move rule in search
17.Fruit maintains piece-lists which are not present in Rybka
18.Fruit maintains a pseudo "bitboard" for pawns, Rybka has the real thing.
19.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka needs to update 4 rotations of occupancy bitboard
20.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka updates a rough estimate of material balance with weights of 1:3:3:5:10 (in the evaluation this value is then corrected by a delta obtained from the material table)
21.Fruit has a 16*16 square mailbox, Rybka has an 8*8
22.The programs have different Zobrist hash keys
23.The programs have different user interface options

We found 35 indisputable differences (some of which are very fundamental), not counting the ones that are debatable such as the Piece Square Tables (PSTs) and the contents of the TT.

Doesn't fit the definition of a derivative work.

Differences do not matter, it is the similarities and the number of them that violate rule 2. 75% of what you cite above comes from the mailbox/bitboard differences. Irrelevant in this context.

Nice try, no cigar.

All the evaluation elements were removed from their data structure, either mailbox or bitbaord. Every evaluation ingrediënt is coded differently, thus NO SIMILARITY.

What's left for you was to find traces of clear code copying. And as you admitted you did a lousy job. No surprise, because it wasn't there.

Double strike.

Not even a reasonable try. One can read Zach's report to see that there WERE many similarities. One can look at parts of the C from fruit, and compare it to the asm from rebuke and see the similarities.

Like Andrew Dalke said, The Zach Wegner document is highly misleading.

Furtmermore -

1. Its style is accusing from the beginning to the end, the reader is told what to think, it doesn't meet any scientific standard.

2. The many errors Zach made, especially his analysis of the Material Imbalance Table (a total new evalution technique now in use by many) is total garbage and yet Zach couldn't resist the temptation to link it anyway to Fruit as a similarity. Shameful.

3. In his fervor and already closed mind that Vas copied Fruit he missed all the evidence that unburdens the alleged similarity accusation at every evaluation element. In mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, even the trapped bishop evaluation, rook evaluation, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does) which Zach totally ignored also. No surprise here, Zach wasn't looking unburden evidences that would plea Vas free, no, convinced in his mind as he was Vas copied Fruit he only looked for signs of similarity, classic tunnel vision thinking. In science you you present the facts objectively. That's not what Zach did.

Some of us programmers have done more than just believing Zach's accusing document and critically scrutinized every accusation Zach made and concluded it is a bogus document.

One can look at Vida's decompilation of Rybka's hashing code, showing both bugs and unnecessary information. The SAME bugs and unnecessary information found in BOTH.

1. There are no bugs another sign that you don't have done your homework again. Both gents (Vas and Fabien) have discussed various search techniques in public (CCC) in the years 2003/4. Look it up! For that purpose I have written a special utility [ http://www.top-5000.nl/ccc.htm ] because I wanted to know what kind of information was shared during the pre-Rybka years.

They discussed and both tried the then much hyped and popular MTD(f) search technique among chess programmers, in the end both decided it did not help their program. Now as you very well know MTD(f) requires a strict data structure with 2 extra scores. Claiming similarity is bogus because the data structure for MTD(f) is OBLIGED.

What you call a bug is also wrong, switching back to a non MTD(f) search has the advantage you can leave the data structure in tact (including the 2 extra scores) and easily can try out other search techniques without rewriting the whole TT again. What you call a bug in fact is FLEXIBILITY. Read the old threads of 2003/04, it's all there.

2. Hash-table code contains 2 main elements:
2a. the update part, position is stored in the HT;
2b. the retrieve part, position is checked if present in the HT.

Regarding 2a - you know very well this part is where the intelligence and creativity of the programmer resides and it is TOTAL different than Fruit. And you know that.

Regarding 2b - Pretty much forced code based on the data structure, you know that as well. Not much choice in coding.

Like Zach, it's your subjective (and already closed) mind that wants to interprete things as evidence against Vas without looking at it from an objective point of view.

Last (and once again), you guys investigated the wrong version, a version that did not play in an ICGA tournament. The first Rybka version that played was 2.32a. In there the HT is completely rewritten from 16 to 8 bytes per entry and any programmer knows what that means: Nothing like Fruit.

Do you understand this is a form of deceit, obscurantism. It's worse then lying, it's unethical, immoral, Ed. It's wrong on every level imaginable.

Maybe Bob should take you to court, you have deceived enough people to damage his reputation. Ed you don't know law and you don't know computer science and you don't care about the truth.

They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?

[Terry McCracken]

It's what I said all along, if you can't proof a derivative work then what the verdict was about is the usuage of "too many" ideas.

And even that is wrong.

Every major evaluation ingredient is coded differently, mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, Rybka is missing Fruit's late endgame knowledge, Rybka has a material table – different from Fruit. Rybka does not contain Fruit's quad function, Rybka’s trapped bishop evaluation is different, rook evaluation is different, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does).

Other key differences between Fruit and Rybka:

1.Time control is different
2.Fen parsing is different
3.Rybka extracts the mainline from the transposition table (TT), Fruit via the classic triangle table
4.Rybka 1.0 beta displays a mainline of maximum of 10 moves, Fruit produces much longer variations
5.Rybka uses a bitboard board representation whereas Fruit is mailbox
6.Rybka’s pawn value is 3200 (which is unique), Fruit uses the classic value of 100
7.The order in the evaluations of Fruit and Rybka are not similar
8.Rybka has lazy evaluation, which is absent in Fruit
9.Futility pruning is different between the two programs
10.Rybka uses Late Move Reductions (LMR) whereas Fruit uses history reductions
11.Fruit uses a history table which is absent Rybka.
12.Fruit only has one evaluation table (king safety) while Rybka has many
13.The two programs have a different move format
14.Rybka does not handle promotions to minor pieces
15.The two programs have different hash table code
16.They have different handling of repetitions and the 50-move rule in search
17.Fruit maintains piece-lists which are not present in Rybka
18.Fruit maintains a pseudo "bitboard" for pawns, Rybka has the real thing.
19.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka needs to update 4 rotations of occupancy bitboard
20.Contrary to Fruit, Rybka updates a rough estimate of material balance with weights of 1:3:3:5:10 (in the evaluation this value is then corrected by a delta obtained from the material table)
21.Fruit has a 16*16 square mailbox, Rybka has an 8*8
22.The programs have different Zobrist hash keys
23.The programs have different user interface options

We found 35 indisputable differences (some of which are very fundamental), not counting the ones that are debatable such as the Piece Square Tables (PSTs) and the contents of the TT.

Doesn't fit the definition of a derivative work.

Differences do not matter, it is the similarities and the number of them that violate rule 2. 75% of what you cite above comes from the mailbox/bitboard differences. Irrelevant in this context.

Nice try, no cigar.

All the evaluation elements were removed from their data structure, either mailbox or bitbaord. Every evaluation ingrediënt is coded differently, thus NO SIMILARITY.

What's left for you was to find traces of clear code copying. And as you admitted you did a lousy job. No surprise, because it wasn't there.

Double strike.

Not even a reasonable try. One can read Zach's report to see that there WERE many similarities. One can look at parts of the C from fruit, and compare it to the asm from rebuke and see the similarities.

Like Andrew Dalke said, The Zach Wegner document is highly misleading.

Furtmermore -

1. Its style is accusing from the beginning to the end, the reader is told what to think, it doesn't meet any scientific standard.

2. The many errors Zach made, especially his analysis of the Material Imbalance Table (a total new evalution technique now in use by many) is total garbage and yet Zach couldn't resist the temptation to link it anyway to Fruit as a similarity. Shameful.

3. In his fervor and already closed mind that Vas copied Fruit he missed all the evidence that unburdens the alleged similarity accusation at every evaluation element. In mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, even the trapped bishop evaluation, rook evaluation, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does) which Zach totally ignored also. No surprise here, Zach wasn't looking unburden evidences that would plea Vas free, no, convinced in his mind as he was Vas copied Fruit he only looked for signs of similarity, classic tunnel vision thinking. In science you you present the facts objectively. That's not what Zach did.

Some of us programmers have done more than just believing Zach's accusing document and critically scrutinized every accusation Zach made and concluded it is a bogus document.

One can look at Vida's decompilation of Rybka's hashing code, showing both bugs and unnecessary information. The SAME bugs and unnecessary information found in BOTH.

1. There are no bugs another sign that you don't have done your homework again. Both gents (Vas and Fabien) have discussed various search techniques in public (CCC) in the years 2003/4. Look it up! For that purpose I have written a special utility [ http://www.top-5000.nl/ccc.htm ] because I wanted to know what kind of information was shared during the pre-Rybka years.

They discussed and both tried the then much hyped and popular MTD(f) search technique among chess programmers, in the end both decided it did not help their program. Now as you very well know MTD(f) requires a strict data structure with 2 extra scores. Claiming similarity is bogus because the data structure for MTD(f) is OBLIGED.

What you call a bug is also wrong, switching back to a non MTD(f) search has the advantage you can leave the data structure in tact (including the 2 extra scores) and easily can try out other search techniques without rewriting the whole TT again. What you call a bug in fact is FLEXIBILITY. Read the old threads of 2003/04, it's all there.

2. Hash-table code contains 2 main elements:
2a. the update part, position is stored in the HT;
2b. the retrieve part, position is checked if present in the HT.

Regarding 2a - you know very well this part is where the intelligence and creativity of the programmer resides and it is TOTAL different than Fruit. And you know that.

Regarding 2b - Pretty much forced code based on the data structure, you know that as well. Not much choice in coding.

Like Zach, it's your subjective (and already closed) mind that wants to interprete things as evidence against Vas without looking at it from an objective point of view.

Last (and once again), you guys investigated the wrong version, a version that did not play in an ICGA tournament. The first Rybka version that played was 2.32a. In there the HT is completely rewritten from 16 to 8 bytes per entry and any programmer knows what that means: Nothing like Fruit.

Do you understand this is a form of deceit, obscurantism. It's worse then lying, it's unethical, immoral, Ed. It's wrong on every level imaginable.

Maybe Bob should take you to court, you have deceived enough people to damage his reputation. Ed you don't know law and you don't know computer science and you don't care about the truth.

They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?

I sure do and he's not a computer scientist. Dr. Hyatt is and so is David Levy, head of the ICGA.

Dr. Hyatt is arguing with science, reason. logic and facts without distortion

Ed Schroeder is doing the exact opposite!

You're a child of 15, show some respect and don't allow yourself to be taken in or manipulated by Ed who claims he's an expert but isn't outside of basic programming mostly old style assembler and chess. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't put him in the same league as Dr. Hyatt, now does it? Ed is not a computer scientist. Ed is not interested in the truth. It's all on a personal level.

It's time for Dr. Hyatt to just ignore Ed and I would request others who know the truth of the matter ignore Ed. It is about as productive an argument as an Evolutionist arguing science with a Creationist!

[Rebel]

They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?

Terry knows. What he is doing is trying to shut down this thread by posting insults. Nice tactic. Has often worked in the past.

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?

Terry knows. What he is doing is trying to shut down this thread by posting insults. Nice tactic. Has often worked in the past.

That's a lie, but lying is something that comes easy to you.

You're sabotaging the thread and lying and blaming me. What a manipulator you are Ed. Now you will likely do what you can to have me ban. That's what I call a lowlife tactic.

You should get banned. You should not go around belittling a man who obviously is quite or at least was a substantial figure in computer chess. There are reasons why people have the opinions that they do, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Ed has a lot of good, solid evidence to back up his case. More than likely he probably does have a lot of truth to what he is saying (he actually backs up his claims...). Your claim to simply suggest that any reasonaby intentlligent person should just listen to Hyatt (I do not care about his expert status) is ridiculous. Reasonably-intelligent individuals here in this community should understand that many authors within the ICGA had motives to find ways to get rid of Vas. The guy was winning all of their tournaments; Rybka was unstoppable. That is motive enough. I believe that Jealousy played a huge part into the ICGA's obvious desire to get rid of Vas; do you really think the copying of code had anything to do with this? Seriously?

Ultimately, do you not see how pointless this entire debate between both Hyatt and Ed is? Nobody cares about the ICGA (and Rybka is also now dead). They are a dying organization with engines extremely inferior to the world's best. The nTCEC has taken over, whether you like it or not, because Martin provides a tournament with many games and many months of competition compared to the joke run by the ICGA. They, to me, and to a lot of the computer-chess community are the ones lying since their rather bold claim that they run the "World Computer Chess Championship" is honestly sadly laughable. Again, it does not really matter. The community chooses where things rightfully go from here - and the ICGA is not found in the books. 

Rybka is its own engine. Its Elo being that of approximately 3160 found on the CCRL website is evidence enough. Vas was no idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he clearly is a more talented programmer than a lot of the authors from the ICGA (his engine's dominance proves this despite the accusations). 

No matter the words discussed here on this forum, Rybka will always go down in history as being one of the strongest computer chess engines relative to its time period of course. 

Vas did exactly the right thing walking away from an obviously pretty sad ICGA organization. 

I am happy to see someone with stature stand up for Vasik.

[Sedat Canbaz]

They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?

Terry knows. What he is doing is trying to shut down this thread by posting insults. Nice tactic. Has often worked in the past.

Ed, with your personal emotion, and personal agenda don’t deceive all of us. Maybe you enjoy attacking Dr. Hyatt and being a liar or playing people because of ego reasons or control, but why don't you let your clone Vasik do it for himself?

Hello Alain,

As far as I noticed,
Your opinions are like barometer )) that's why I don't care too much...sorry...

And I suggest to read this thread again (who already missed to see before):
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... t&start=20

Have a nice weekend,
Sedat

[michiguel]

Not sure what this has got to do with the issue of whether rule #2 is about copyrights. And it seems to me that in either case it is not the number of differences that is relevant, but how much was similar.

Did you read? Nothing is similar.

Every major evaluation ingredient is coded differently, mobility, king safety, passed pawns, double pawns, backward pawns, Rybka is missing Fruit's late endgame knowledge, Rybka has a material table – different from Fruit. Rybka does not contain Fruit's quad function, Rybka’s trapped bishop evaluation is different, rook evaluation is different, bishop pair evaluation different and most importantly, Fruit evaluates in stages in a unique way whereas Rybka adds directly to its score (as every other program on the planet does).

You never looked at the evidence.

Even the most simple evaluation of all (the double pawn) is evaluated differently. Fruit has a fixed penalty value for the mid and endgame. Rybka only evaluates for the endgame. Just to give you an example.

Seriously, "nothing is similar"??? Hashing is almost a perfect match, the one difference came because he split it up into separate pieces as a speed optimization. Nothing similar in parse_go, no mysterious 0.0 constants in more than one place? Nothing similar in the evaluation? And then there were the earlier rybkas as well. Nothing copied in those either???

Again with the 0.0? gosh...

Miguel